Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[erinmeri]

@Dragonfly90

I wouldn’t say that the people who comment on any of the sites you listed represent the general population, hopefully they would not get through jury selection. They like to argue, name call and post outrageous comments, it’s all a game. And going after the woman is par for the course, whether they are sympathetic victim or not.
I have no idea how a jury will react in the civil trial but I wouldn’t consider the comments made on YouTube etc any indication.

In my experience, Instagram is usually a pretty friendly place. So, in your estimation then, nowhere online is an accurate (or ballpark) barometer for public opinion?

I do hope none of those people make it onto this civil suit’s jury, because they have followed the case and don’t appear to be impartial. That said, I don’t know that their reaction to what they have seen isn’t indicative of some kind of barometer. Usually people on both sides of an argument are inclined to post. There do not seem to be too many opinions out of line with the general consensus. I don’t agree with a lot of the more vitriolic comments, myself. But I do see an overwhelming trend in recognizing that she has culpability with regards to whatever happened.

[Einhorn]

@erinmeri

What do you think, aside from appeal, can be done about that? I am not as fervent a believer in Taylor’s bias as many others, but this seems a step too far (and an obvious one). Would he face any kind of repercussions if he pushed this

The only other mechanisms I’m familiar with in theses situations would be:
judicial oversight committee, but it sounds as though that had been done, or

If NJ judges have to go through some type of periodic vote by the public, that can get them ousted.

Appeals can be a powerful motivator for some judges, many do not like being overturned.

[Aurora58]

Plus the fact that non horsey people that follow and comment on general Law and Crime trials could see right through LK and RG’s testimony without even hearing a smidgen of what LK and crew did to MB. If you really look at the comments, a good 95% are siding with MB. And you should look at the comments about LK, they are horrible, COTH is mild in comparison. Too bad CH and HH didn’t go there to try and school those horrible people about their victim shaming, pleasure of hate, etc. I would have loved to have seen the responses to the schooling.

[erinmeri]

@Einhorn

The only other mechanisms I’m familiar with in theses situations would be:
judicial oversight committee, but it sounds as though that had been done, or

If NJ judges have to go through some type of periodic vote by the public, that can get them ousted.

Appeals can be a powerful motivator for some judges, many do not like being overturned.

Thank you! It does seem egregious to me to insist that because of the criminal trial (and one previous Krol hearing?) he believes that the law doesn’t have to be followed.

Unfortunately, judges in NJ are nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate.

ETA, Taylor was nominated in 2015 by Chris Christie, reconfirmed in 2020 and can serve until 2030, https://ballotpedia.org/Stephen_J._Taylor

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ASB_Stars

@CurrentlyHorseless

Apparently LO was there. Did she tell you privately that KK and LK were present? Why shouldn’t they be present? Apparently Krol hearings are not closed, despite your claims.

I haven’t been following this closely, because, well, this is crazy. However, this was too juicy to not comment on.

The "K"s can’t show up for their deps, or answer the court timely, but you’re saying that they sashayed into the Krol hearing just… because? You do not see how this kind of comment makes your posts just silly? There isn’t any gravitas in your “theories”, and that’s a shame because you spend so much time on them.

I do not think the Kanareks are making motions for the subpoenas to be quashed or making motions for a virtual deposition (granted) or to limit the scope of the questions in LKs deposition simply because they “don’t have time” to comply or are creating delays just to delay.

That’s the mob narrative, not mine.

I think they’re taking this whole thing very seriously and availing themselves of the legal moves available to them to maximize their position. Stone may or may not succeed on his motion to bar further questions on LKs provocation. It was a shot he had to take if he’s providing the Kanareks with good representation, though.

I think the Kanareks are taking the Krol hearings seriously as well.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

I have a problem with her communicating with LO and claiming that she’s not

Dang!!! So you have the gall to demand I report to you who I do and don’t communicate with? How dare you! As I’ve said to you and everyone here before (and this will be the last time I say it to you) I don’t lie. Do you honestly believe I would post details here if I spoke with MHG, who I have known since she was 15? If I spoke with LO this morning about anything it is absolutely none of your business or the business of anyone here. Besides, I don’t even have @trubandloki’s phone number!

It doesn’t bother me if you speak to LO privately and then inadvertently leak a few tidbits here.

I think it may bother LO, but that’s between you and LO.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I think they’re taking this whole thing very seriously and availing themselves of the legal moves available to them to maximize their position. Stone may or may not succeed on his motion to bar further questions on LKs provocation. It was a shot he had to take if he’s providing the Kanareks with good representation, though.

But he doesn’t represent the senior Kanareks… and if they were “taking this whole thing very seriously”, wouldn’t they have retained their own individual counsel and responded to the subpoenas before deadlines lapsed with motions to quash?

[erinmeri]

Is very clear a certain poster did not bother to read NJ Rules 3:19-2 and 4:74-7!

[3PonyFarm]

I hope that the Krol hearing will be closed. There is a lot of prejudice and lack of understanding about mental health issues in the world. Putting someone’s health conditions out to the public does nothing to help that person heal.

[Knights_Mom]

@Aurora58

Plus the fact that non horsey people that follow and comment on general Law and Crime trials could see right through LK and RG’s testimony without even hearing a smidgen of what LK and crew did to MB. If you really look at the comments, a good 95% are siding with MB. And you should look at the comments about LK, they are horrible, COTH is mild in comparison. Too bad CH and HH didn’t go there to try and school those horrible people about their victim shaming, pleasure of hate, etc. I would have loved to have seen the responses to the schooling.

I have no doubt that HH, CH and all the Ks have frequented social media - all of it - and know what’s being said. But as they believe this particular board consists of people in the horse world its possible they see the tide/opinions here as important for LKs future.

Whatever posting they’ve done elsewhere has been unilaterally laughed at and scoffed.

[erinmeri]

@erinmeri

Thank you! It does seem egregious to me to insist that because of the criminal trial (and one previous Krol hearing?) he believes that the law doesn’t have to be followed.

Unfortunately, judges in NJ are nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate.

ETA, Taylor was nominated in 2015 by Chris Christie, reconfirmed in 2020 and can serve until 2030, https://ballotpedia.org/Stephen_J._Taylor

Yes, I am replying to myself. Ruminating on this further, of COURSE Barisone’s mental health issues had to be made public in order to mount a defense of NGRI, by definition they would have had to be. For Taylor to say that means Barisone’s rights to privacy are waived is absurd on the surface. If it weren’t, why would it be necessary for procedure to codified, i.e. NJ Rules 3:19-2 and 4:74-7, that state otherwise for all but those acquitted of murder?

Am probably stating the obvious…

[Ambitious_Kate]

@CurrentlyHorseless

What? The Krol hearings are presided over by the judge who presided over the criminal trial.

What? Just because MB agreed for his personal health to be discussed in the criminal trial doesn’t mean he’s given up rights to it forever. HIPAA states that private health history can only be used for the specific purpose needed at the bare minimum at the time and no further. MB obviously agreed to divulge his health history during the trial because he wanted to for his defense, and to a limited extent, because the court ordered some psychiatric exams to be made and those were presented at the criminal trial. Other aspects of his health history that weren’t pertinent to the proceeding was not divulged. Just because Taylor made his health history public for the sake of the criminal trial doesn’t mean he gets to publicize it forever after, if MB doesn’t want him to. That’s what HIPAA is, it cuts out the sharing of health information outside of a reason for the person;s health care. The KROL hearing has nothing to do with the criminal trial. Its a hearing about his health care, His health data is not Taylor’s to decide, in fact, Taylor is federally liable for violating HIPAA if he doesn’t follow the law regarding it. That can be hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and can go on his permanent record as a Judge.

If there is a court ordered examination of Lauren’s psychiatric history that pertains to her behaviour towards Michael and others she has targeted and abused, and her health history such as addictions and hospitalizations about the shooting, that will be made availble in public court because it pertains narrowly to the proceeding. But other aspects of her health history that isn’t relevent to the proceedings will not be avilable to the court, and it doesn’t mean that her future health records are ours or anyone else’s to know about or to divulge, unless she herself divulges it. That’s HIPAA. Not whatever it is you think you’re gleaned from google.

[erinmeri]

@Ambitious_Kate

What? Just because MB agreed for his personal health to be discussed in the criminal trial doesn’t mean he’s given up rights to it forever. HIPAA states that private health history can only be used for the specific purpose needed at the bare minimum at the time and no further. MB obviously agreed to divulge his health history during the trial because he wanted to, and because the court ordered it. Just because Taylor made his health history public for the sake of the criminal trial doesn’t mean he gets to publicize it forever after, if MB doesn’t want him to. That’s what HIPAA is, it cuts out the sharing of health information outside of a reason for the person;s health care. The KROL hearing has nothing to do with the criminal trial. Its a hearing about his health care, His health data is not Taylor’s to decide, in fact, Taylor is federally liable for violating HIPAA if he doesn’t follow the law regarding it. That can be hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and can go on his permanent record as a Judge.

In looking into the NJ laws around Krol hearings, I came across an article for families of mentally ill people who are currently engaged in the criminal justice system. It said that often even the obviously mentally ill will not allow their lawyers to mount a defense by reason of insanity… which obviously complicates things. I will see if I can find it. There is an astounding and depressing number of mentally ill folks who are currently in the prison population when they should be receiving treatment for their illness. It’s horrifying. (Even if it can be argued that Greystone doesn’t provide adequate treatment, I imagine prison is worse.)

Anyways, I think it’s brave of Barisone to air his medical history. Such defenses rarely succeed and stigma around mental health conditions abounds.

He should not be punished moving forward for defending himself and disclosing his private medical information in order to do so. The rules around the privacy of Krol hearings must exist for a reason… no?

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I think the Kanareks are taking the Krol hearings seriously as well.

The Krol hearings are none of their business. They have no right to be there, but Taylor saw to that by making them public.

Other than their lawsuit the Kanareks are doing nothing but harassing Barisone showing up at Krol Hearings. This isn’t like a parole hearing although they seem to think so with their letters and transcripts sent to judges and hospitals.

[3PonyFarm]

Excellent post!

[Ambitious_Kate]

If a person offers medical reasons for what they have done or what they claim in a lawsuit or criminal trial, then investigating the medical records is now open, in court. So LK’s medical and psychiatric history will be part of her proceedings, because she claims to be physcially compromised and emotionally compromised by the events that happened. That’s in court.

KROL is not open and public. Just because a narrow aspect of his current hospitalization is being discussed in a KROL hearing does not mean the public gets to hear about it, and that includes the Kanawrecks.

Taylor also oversees civil commitments that have nothing to do with a criminal trial, and he does not have the authority to publicize those people’s health information, either. He is in direct violation of HIPAA and of KROL.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

It doesn’t bother me if you speak to LO privately and then inadvertently leak a few tidbits here.

I think it may bother LO, but that’s between you and LO.

I’m sure LO will appreciate your concern! I’ll contact her when I have an opportunity and let her know. If Barisone calls me collect, should I be sure to notify you as well? Maybe I need a list from you who I may communicate with, what we can discuss, and what “tidbits” I can tell you! Will tomorrow morning give you enough time to compile that list. I am 72 years old and need close supervision for sure! I’m thankful you are keeping me in my lane.

[erinmeri]

@Ambitious_Kate

Taylor also oversees civil commitments that have nothing to do with a criminal trial, and he does not have the authority to publicize those people’s health information, either. He is in direct violation of HIPAA and of KROL.

He does? It appears he serves in the Criminal Division. Do they oversee civil commitments? I honestly don’t know. The only experience I have with non-criminal detention of mentally ill folks is the implementation of 5150s (72-hour psych holds) in the ER when I worked in one.

[Ambitious_Kate]

@Ambitious_Kate

Taylor also oversees civil commitments that have nothing to do with a criminal trial, and he does not have the authority to publicize those people’s health information, either. He is in direct violation of HIPAA and of KROL.

Anyone can file a HIPAA complaint against an entity or individual. I wonder if anyone has filed one against Taylor yet?

[Ambitious_Kate]

@erinmeri

He does? It appears he serves in the Criminal Division. Do they oversee civil commitments? I honestly don’t know. The only experience I have with non-criminal detention of mentally ill folks is the implementation of 5150s (72-hour psych holds) in the ER when I worked in one.

I thought he did but I could be wrong. He doesn’t however have the right to violate HIPAA or KROL.